First-Class Battleships “Idaho” and “Mississippi”

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The “Idaho” and the “Mississippi,"' building at Cramps, are smaller editions of the “Connecticut.” With a length of 375 feet, a beam of 77 feet, and draft of 24 feet 8 inches, they displace 13,000 tons. On this displacement they carry four 12-inch, eight 8-inch, and eight 7- inch guns; so that their main battery is less than that of the larger ship by only four 7-inch pieces. They have two 21- inch submerged torpedo tubes, and their armor plan is practically the same as that of the “Kansas.” The 3,000 tons difference in displacement between the “Idaho” and the “Kansas” shows its effect most strongly in the engine room and the speed, the horse-power being only 10,000 as against 16,500, and the speed one knot less, or 17 knots an hour. It is to be regretted that such powerful ships as these should, in this year of our Lord 1907, and in this age of 21-knot battleships, be going out to the trial course with the expectation of doing no better than 17 knots an hour

Scientific American Magazine Vol 97 Issue 23This article was published with the title “First-Class Battleships “Idaho” and “Mississippi”” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 97 No. 23 (), p. 430
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican12071907-430

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe